Looking out across the front yard: aboriginal peoples’ views of frailty in the community – A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Frailty is one of the most significant challenges to healthy ageing. Aboriginal Australians experience some of the highest levels of frailty worldwide, and despite this, no studies have explored frailty from an Aboriginal perspective. This is important because Aboriginal understandings and priorities in frailty may differ from Western/mainstream frailty frameworks. Furthermore, this lack of research severely hampers healthcare planning and service delivery. As a starting point, this study aims to understand the experiences, attitudes, and perceptions that Aboriginal older adults hold regarding frailty. DESIGN: A qualitative study that utilized the Indigenous research method of Yarning for data collection as a culturally appropriate process for engaging Aboriginal peoples. Yarning circles and one-on-one yarns with 22 Aboriginal adults aged 45+ years living in one Australian capital city took place online and over the phone to explore the views that Aboriginal adults hold around frailty. Data were analysed thematically by Aboriginal researchers. RESULTS: Seven key thematic areas were identified: (1) Keep in with culture; (2) Physical markers of frailty; (3) Frailty throughout the life course; (4) Social, cultural, and psychological understandings of frailty; (5) We want information about frailty; (6) Appropriate and positive wording; (7) Frailty assessment. CONCLUSIONS: There was interest and engagement in the concept of frailty by Aboriginal older adults and approaches to frailty that extend beyond the physical to address cognitive, psychosocial, cultural and spiritual domains are likely to be more acceptable to this population. Culture and community connectivity are essential elements in preventing and alleviating frailty and have wider positive implications for Aboriginal health and wellbeing. Existing tools in practice to assess frailty are not aligned with Aboriginal cultural norms. Culturally appropriate frailty assessment methods co-designed with the community which incorporate holistic and multidimensional approaches are urgently needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".